128-bit Windows 8 and 128-bit Windows 9 – My Two Cents

Last Updated on Thursday, 8 October 2009 02:13 Written by Mire_B Thursday, 8 October 2009 02:13

Processors are evolving toward 128-bit architectures, even though Intel, AMD, and IBM are not exactly trumpeting their plans to the public. The simple fact that Microsoft is even considering testing Windows 8 and Windows 9 for compatibility with 128-bit processors is a clue that 128-bit CPUs are somewhere on a horizon that is yet undefined for general customers.

Some people might remember the growth of the processor like this: 4-bit, 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit and 64-bit, when in fact there were also 18-bit, 24-bit, 31-bit, 36-bit, and 48-bit computers throughout the years. But this is not exactly relevant to the matter at hand. What it relevant is that processor technology evolves. There’s absolutely no reason why Intel or ADM should stop pushing the address space further and further, even though 64-bit (x64) processors in combination with 64-bit (x64) operating system can handle addressing more than sufficient physical memory.

So why the need for 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 bytes memory addressing? Well, I’ll be honest, I have no idea.

And yet here is what Robert Morgan, Senior Research and Development at Microsoft is working on, courtesy of ArsTechnica: Working in high security department for research and development involving strategic planning for medium and longterm projects. Research & Development projects including 128bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel and Windows 9 project plan. Forming relationships with major partners: Intel, AMD, HP and IBM.

Robert Morgan is working to get IA-128 working backwards with full binary compatibility on the existing IA-64 instructions in the hardware simulation to work for Windows 8 and definitely Windows 9.

I for one wouldn’t hold my breath for 128-bit CPU support in Windows 8, at least not the client OS. Microsoft has already started planning, and will soon start the actual work on Windows 8. And let’s be honest, do you see yourselves buy a computer with a 128-bit processor in 3+ years?

What Morgan is saying is that it is working on 128-bit CPU support for Windows 8 and Windows 9, but he never says that it’s about the client. I’m willing to bet that when 128-bit will make the key step toward mainstream adoption it will be with servers. After all, Windows 8 and Windows 9 are codenames used for both the future versions of Windows client and server platforms.

128-bit processors in servers makes sense, especially for physical machines that will need to accommodate as many virtual operating systems as possible. A single physical server running multiple virtual machines could swallow up large quantities of RAM. Sufficiently large to justify the need for the address space of a 128-bit CPU? Maybe not in 2009 or in 2010, but what about in 2011/2012? What about 2015? Yes, read between the lines, that’s about when Windows 9 will drop?

Besides, do you see developers starting to build 128-bit applications within three years after Windows 7? Do you see hardware manufacturers developing 128-bit drivers by 2011-2012? Because I don’t.